Case Digest (G.R. No. 99031)
Facts:
Rodolfo D. Llamas v. Executive Secretary Oscar Orbos and Mariano Un Ocampo III, G.R. No. 99031, October 15, 1991, Supreme Court En Banc, Paras, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rodolfo D. Llamas was the Vice‑Governor of Tarlac who, by virtue of a decision of the Office of the President, assumed the governorship on March 1, 1991 as acting governor. Private respondent Mariano Un Ocampo III was the duly elected Governor of Tarlac who had been found administratively guilty and suspended for ninety (90) days by the Secretary of the then Department of Local Government (DLG). Public respondent Oscar Orbos, then Executive Secretary, was impleaded in his official capacity for issuing the challenged Resolution of May 15, 1991 that reduced Governor Ocampo’s 90‑day suspension to the time already served.
The controversy began with two complaints against Governor Ocampo: a verified complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman dated November 10, 1988 for alleged violation of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), and a verified complaint dated June 7, 1989 (filed June 13, 1989) with the DLG, docketed Administrative Case No. 10459, charging violations of several provisions of B.P. Blg. 337 (Local Government Code) and related statutes arising from a loan agreement between the Provincial Government and the Lingkod Tarlac Foundation, Inc. Both sides presented evidence at the administrative hearing.
On September 21, 1990 the DLG Secretary rendered judgment finding Governor Ocampo guilty of violating Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 (serious neglect of duty and/or abuse of authority) and imposed the penalty of suspension for 90 days, effective upon finality. Reconsideration was denied on October 19, 1990. Ocampo appealed to the Office of the President (O.P. Case No. 4480) and, on February 26, 1991, the Executive Secretary issued a Resolution dismissing the appeal and affirming the DLG decision. Pursuant to B.P. Blg. 337, Section 66, the O.P. decision was immediately executory; Llamas took his oath and assumed office as acting governor on March 1, 1991.
Governor Ocampo filed a motion for reconsideration (dated March 1, 1991) but later sought executive clemency. Without ruling on the motion for reconsideration, the Executive Secretary issued a Resolution dated May 15, 1991 granting Ocampo executive clemency by reducing his 90‑day suspension to the period already served and thereby enabling Ocampo to reassume the governorship (reassumption ceremony allegedly on May 21, 1991). The May 15 Resolution recited submissions showing partial success of the Livelihood Loan program operated through the Foundation and noted that Ocampo had served more than 60 days of the suspension.
Petitioner Llamas filed a petition with the Supreme Court on May 21, 1991 seeking relief (including a temporary restraining order or cease and desist order) to prevent enforcement of the May 15, 1991 Resolution and to restrain Ocampo from reassuming the governorship. Llamas argued that the President’s power to grant clemency applies only to criminal convictions ("after conviction by final judgment" under Art. VII, Sec. 19, 1987 Constitution), that Ocampo had been “convicted” only in an administrative proceeding, that Ocampo’s reassumption defeated Llamas’ incumbency, that Llamas was not notified of the clemency and was thereby denied due process, and that the Executi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the grant of executive clemency in this case a nonjusticiable political question beyond judicial review?
- May the President grant executive clemency in administrative cases (in the Executive branch)?
- Was the May 15, 1991 Resolution granting executive clemency to Governor Ocampo tainted by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction?
- Did petitioner Llamas suffer a denial of due process from la...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)